Hi everyone. I have a big post today on Elemental, and I hope the developers will read it! To introduce myself: my name is Keith Burgun, and I'm the lead designer at Dinofarm Games. I recently wrote a book on game design (should be out in Sept), I write on the topic of game design for Gamasutra and a few other well-known sites. I also teach game design classes at a few nearby schools. That's not to say that I'm some authority on game design, but it is to say that I do take it very seriously, and so hopefully I can provide a little bit more insight than the average fan (maybe not, of course... we'll see).
So I've always been a huge 4X fan and Master of Magic is one of my favorite PC games of all time, so I really care deeply about FE reaching that level. Right now, it's definitely not at that level - yet - for a few reasons.
I want to quickly say that FE is closer to reaching that level than any other fantasy 4X game that has come since. It's leagues better than any HoMM, Age of Wonders or even that new fantasy 4X game that just came out on Steam (whose name is eluding me at the moment).
So, this post is mostly negative from here on in only because I want to help this project improve, not because I have a generally negative opinion on the game.
If you only read some parts of this, make sure to read Point One, and Point Four at the end.
Point one - Focus on the Core Gameplay Mechanism
I'm a bit concerned about the complexity level of Elemental. Obviously, it's not as though going over a certain "threshold" of complexity = bad game. You can have a game of any level of complexity, so long as every single element ties into the fundamental, core gameplay mechanism.
We have to ask the question, "what is the fundamental, core gameplay mechanism for Elemental?" Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but it seems to me that it is the tactical battles. That is where the majority of interesting decisions takes place, and you could say that everything in the game is all indirectly building up to those tactical battles. Exploring helps you find resources, which helps you build cities, which helps you build units or research spells, all of which are used in... tactical battles.
(Some of you may disagree that tactical battles are the core gameplay mechanism for the game. If so, I'd like to hear what you think the core gameplay mechanism is. For now though, I will continue on under the impression that it is indeed tactical battles at the heart of this game.)
I remember back in the late 90s, complaining about Master of Magic's really useless diplomacy system. "What the hell", I thought, "these screens are nearly pointless. No matter what it seems like I'm sucked into war." I used to think that that was a problem in that game.
It was only years later, when I learned about what a "core gameplay mechanism" was and how important staying tightly woven into that was, that I realized that this "crappy" diplomacy system was actually a really smart design move. Because in Master of Magic, the core gameplay mechanism is certainly the tactical battles, and so being able to permanently keep from fighting would be like keeping from jumping in Super Mario Brothers, or keeping from shooting in Doom.
How does this relate to Elemental? Well, generally the game seems to be pretty aware of its core gameplay concept, but there are some areas which make me not-so-sure. Like I said at the top of this section, I'm concerned about some specific areas of over-complexity, some of which undermine or are only tangentially related to the core gameplay mechanism.
Point Two - The Aforementioned Over-Complexity
There are simply too many "tiny" choices that players get to make in Elemental. Once a decision gets beyond a certain threshold of impact, a better game design would simply streamline (remove) it. Don't make me make 10,000 "tiny" decisions in a playthrough of Elemental. A design that makes me make 1000 more significant ones is better.
Some really clear examples of over-complexity that I would address:
1. Unit Design - Now, I know people are very attached to this idea of designing your own units in this game, and so while I might personally get rid of it, I think there is a compromise that can be made. Firstly, let me say why I would cut it out of the game.
If the game is indeed about tactical battles, then allowing players to design their own units only muddies up the battlefield. It means that things are not visually clear. "Okay," you might say, "that's a swordsman, so as long as I am this far away, I should be fine on this turn". Oops! That swordsman had throwing knives equipped and you got attacked this turn after all. Not to mention the fact that you have no idea how much those footsoldiers are going to do in damage to you. They might be awesome, or they might be complete crap. It's just a lot of noise.
My Proposed Compromise: But anyway, I know people are nutty for "customization", so whatever. At least, please cut out those "traits". That is an amazing example of giving people a tiny choice that isn't significant enough to be interesting. Do you want 0.01% more damage now, or 0.01% more money later? This should be a good illustration of the problem.
Another note on Unit Design: Piercing and Blunt weapons, really? Does this game really need that level of resolution?
2. City Building - I could probably boil down all of the cities in Elemental, and express all of them in 6-12 building types. How many buildings are there now - like, friggin 200 or something? It's ridiculous. In addition to the "tiny choice problem" I just explained, having too many buildings creates another problem. That problem being late game "annoying city management". All of you 4x players know exactly what I'm talking about. Going from city to city late game and basically just eventually filling out each city with all the buildings. It's tedious and it becomes a no-brainer. This is a problem common to almost all 4X games.
Instead of having like 3-5 buildings just for military units, do this: There are like two "tiers" of military units. You can always build the first tier, but to get the second tier, you need a barracks. A barracks takes like, half the game to create, though. Some of you might say "that's not enough resolution! There should be a more gradual evolution of units!" That's what the tech tree is for! It's OK if the tech tree is roughly as complex as it is now, because the tech tree is always interesting and is never tedious.
My Proposed Compromise: At the very least, give us the Civ IV "governor" thing, so that we can just have the AI make the required no-brainer decisions for us late-game.
Point Three - Too Much Junk
So, beyond the game being too complex (in terms of how many tiny little insignificant decisions you have to make), there's also just a bunch of noisy garbage that clogs up a player's game.
1. Items - I played one game that lasted maybe 4-5 hours long. In that game, my heroes eventually got like, 40-some items in their packs. Firstly, all kinds of stuff like "leather greaves" to food items to even useless items like "wolf skins".
How about we make items, in general, way rarer. Don't make me have to go dicking around in a single unit's (even if it's my Champion) inventory every 50 turns or so to have to "equip the +10 sword instead of the +9 sword". This is a no brainer decision and it has to be removed!
And there are completely useless items that I just have to take to town and sell? What the hell is that? What is this, Diablo?
Please do the following: Make items in general way more rare. Make it so that you can't find "leather greaves" and other normal items. Only magical items, and you'll only find between 1 and 5 of them in a single game. Make it special when I find an item, so that I'm EXCITED to go into the inventory screen, at least. Cut out useless items, and honestly cut out the whole system where I can
2. Spells - In that same game, I had something like 30 different spells that I could cast in a battle. Of course, I only used about 3 of them. Raise your hand if that's how it works for you, too - you use about 10% of the spells that you have. This is classic bad design!
Instead, it should be like the items. If you get ONE NEW SPELL, it should be like "oh man, awesome, I can't wait to use this new spell!" Instead I get like 3 or 4 spells at once from some new tech upgrade.
Further, many of the spells are redundant. Curse, and Mass Curse? Fire Bolt and Fire Ball and Fire Touch and Fire Wave? Again, this is not smart design.
Now, it'd be one thing, though, if in a single game you only got 2-5 spells, and maybe on this game, you only have access to Fire Ball and no Fire Bolt. But it seems like the spells you get are pretty much just a matter of teching to them.
Give me less spells, but make each spell have more identity. Also: beware a mana system + direct damage spells. I'm just going to cast direct damage spells and nothing else. I learned this the hard way designing the Wizard for 100 Rogues.
3. Monsters - I feel like there are like 5 or 6 different "popcorn" monsters: the super low level monsters that you're supposed to just 'harvest' more than fight early game. Why? Just make there be ONE KIND OF MONSTER PER FUNCTION. I would propose something like:
Bears = popcorn monsters, for you to harvest for XP and feel good about yourself over
Dire Bears= first monsters who can actually kill you with a nasty bite
Skeleton Bears = Monsters who threaten your civilization with evil bear powers
Dragon Bears = The ultimate monsters that have godlike stats and bear fire breath
Really, is there some reason why we need more than this? The interesting battles should be against the other AIs who, as you might recall, have uniquely designed units. So keep the monsters simple!
Point Four: Focus On Tactics!
Okay so so far this post has been "don't do this! remove this! no no no!" Here is where I suggest that you guys add some complexity that will be really meaningful and add to the interestingness of the game.
What if instead of all this "+0.01% damage" and "+0.01% fire resistance" type stat-stravaganza, the units had different tactical traits? I know, right now there is a tiny amount of this. Some units have more/less movement points, some have ranged attacks, some have spells, some have more/less HP.
But, what if there was more tactical stuff than that? Take a look at SSI's Fantasy General for example. In this game, there are many very interesting and rich wargame mechanisms. Here are some possible examples of TACTICAL additions I would like to see added in Elemental:
1. Zone of Control: In many tactical strategy games, units have something called "Zone of Control". How this works is, if an enemy unit walks to a tile that's adjacent to one of your units, he then has only 1 more movement point left. This means that he can't just "rush by" your front units, and you can set up screens.
2. Consider hexes?: I know this sounds zany, but... hexes are really much, much better for strategy games. There's plenty of writing on this subject, but in short, there is an equal amount of distance from the center of any tile to the center of any adjacent tile in hexes. This isn't the case for squares; moving diagonally actually gets you further than moving orthogonally.
3. Supporting fire: Maybe archers shoot enemies who attack melee units
4. More terrain stuff: High ground, cover, etc. There's just not a lot of this right now. Even Master of Magic has some random rocks and things scattered around.
5. Melee units both attack at the same time: If you and I both have melee units of equal strength, maybe I shouldn't get an advantage for attacking first. Maybe I have to get an advantage by using tactics, like archer supporting fire or terrain stuff or spells.
6. More "positional" spells: How about more spells that simply MOVE units around the battlefield? Like pushing them back, or creating barriers, or things like that. I'm telling you, direct damage spells are the least interesting thing ever, but if you give me them I'm going to use them because they're fucking effective.
Anyway, I think you guys are doing great work and I really hope someone at the team will see this post and take it to heart. Keep up the good work, Stardock!
Tldr version; Many play this game exactly for its high resolution. Im guessing devs are aiming for a high resolution game. You want something else. GTFO (see Brad, you dont have to cuss at your fans, we will do it for you ).
On a more serious note.
I have to agree with virtually all of the responses in this thread; we generally do not want the game to be simplified. The complexity and detail is what differentiates this game from many other similar titles. Dont get me wrong here, A LOT of stuff is actually redundant, uninteresting and pointless. Some buildings are too similar, some quests are boring, some sov level choices are no brainers for example. But what you suggest, Keith, is really removing many of the reasons we want to play this game. I absolutely love that I have to produce every single horse in my army, I love unit customization, I want more monsters (not less), I want lots of spells (even though I agree with you that they need to have purpose and be unique). I want more items. Too many games have too low resolution
I get that you want emergent complexity from simple rules but I also think it is pretty safe to assume that what you want is not what the majority of the fan base wants and that it is not what the devs want. This game is all about marrying many detailed systems with the overall strategic gameplay.
Finally, I think it is going to be a nightmare to balance this game and make the AI good because it is very hard to prepare it for the complex decisions that will arise. However, if you remove most of the complexity and detail the game will be just like every other 4x title out there.
Yeah, its funny. I read the first few paragraphs of Keith's post and was thinking this should be interesting I imagine I will agree with most of what this guy writes...
And yet as I read your post I found myself thinking "no, nup, nah, don't want that", most of the time. As a few others also posted the overriding thought that came to me was that I'm not sure FE is the right game for Keith! Which is strange since from the first few paragraphs it certainly sounded like it should be.
However I do mostly agree with your points in #4. Stats are important (ie +1 attack, +1 defence, etc) so traits which provide them are OK but ulitmately they are a bit boring. A few more special traits that do more interesting things rather than just change stats would increase the depth of both unit design and tactical combat.
Agreed. For most of us the problem isn't that FE is too complex. The problem right now is that much of the complexity is meaningless in that all choices are equally valid or one choice is so much better than the alternatives that it is a no brainer. In either case there is no meaningful decision for the player to make which is bad. However this is the sort of problem that can be improved by incremental balancing as they continue through the beta process.
I'm not quite so convinced that the anemic strategic depth in empire building can be fixed with incremental balancing, but otoh fixing the building choices, making pioneers more time consuming to build and adding some sort of maintenance for extra cities (noticeable enough to make you think twice about city spamming endlessly, but small enough that mid-long term extra cities will definitely pay off) would go a long way so maybe it is possible.
I mostly agree with Keithburgun. The current Beta of FE is over-complex, but most of all it suffers from confused (not finalised) magic and AI system implementations, as well as economy problems. This makes sense in a Beta, because its better to trim features late in the dev stage than to add new ones - however, as it stands now, I think his points are relevant.
Sovereign differentiation (and magical element differentiation) are vital.
Maybe, this whole discussion is just about drawing the line between useful, well thought, interacting complexity, and just "more stuff" thrown in to make it appear you have more choices and depth.
But the above border line can mean different things for different people. I feel Derek and the other devs of FE are putting effort in making that sort of complexity that matters. And they are certainly being successful - to a smaller or larger extent depending on whom you ask to. Could they do more? Yes. Could it be better? Always. That's why many of us are posting ideas. But, inevitably, some of these ideas do not go in the same direction. The truth is, designing a game is something very difficult, it requires sharp logic and at the same time that kind of inspiration that artists and craftsmen have. That's why I find it so compelling.
But one thing is true: Go, Chess and the like would not be good video games, at least for this community, despite being fun and interesting board games with very deep strategy. What this community wants is, I believe, also something more. They like immersion, lore, details. Like in a tale, there are a lot of details that are not fundamental, but that make it so much more interesting. It's the RPG side of the game.
EDIT: more on your OP
I have a question for you. You say you loved MoM and also that you want fewer spells in FE. This seems a contraddiction. Maybe the issue is not about quantity, but meaningfulness? Same for monsters.
On the traits issue I think he may have a point. Having to check all times the traits of every single opposing unit may be tiring and not fun. How about allowing different traits for different units? e.g. mounted units can have different traits than shooters, melee units and so on. Polearms units may have different traits and so on. So, to use MoM language, Pikemen can have firststrike, but it's up to you if they have it or not. But horse archers cannot have it. So, archers should not be allowed to have strong, heavy infantry shold not have agile and so on. This way, I know what I could expect from each unit...
Btw thank you for taking the time to write this long OP and suggesting changes, I can feel you really care about FE
Or at least he did several months ago when this was written. Can we stop with all the thread necro?
I appreciate your concern for this game. I also feel that their are some points that you make that I can appreciate but get the feeling that you either did not play this game enough or your thoughts are clouded by preconceived ideas for this game.
1. Core Mechanics
I agree that the game does have a natural progression to battle your opponents and the battles are tactical, but I would not say that tactical battle is the main focus of the game. If it was, I don't think they would have put a fast forward button in the tactical map. By player several different games, the player can find some interesting parts on the strategic map. There are quests which allow for experience and receiving stuff. There is a quest editor in the works and from what I see there can be some very interesting quests coming soon and I might find myself engrossed in doing quests. Some maps have wild lands that adds intrigue to what can be found in there.
2. Complexity
Unit design can be as complex as you want to make it. The game defaults to giving units upgrades. What is great about this game is that it allows players to customize units to work with their style of play. I have to believe this is a good thing.
Buildings have been redone and I like it better than it was. I do agree with some aspects with the cost benefit of buildings. It would be nice after spending many turns to make a building the impact would be greater.
3. Junk
Items: I do like the different items available. I like the fact that an axe function differently than a sword which functions differently than a mace. I also like the weight attribute. The initiative attribute is a brilliant part of items which if you like tactical battles has a great affect in battle. The part I do agree with is that there are several weapons in the same class that are not much different from one another.
Monster:
Different kinds of monsters are a good thing.
Spells:
I like all the different spells but I do agree that some of the spells are missing some excitement but I'm not sure why. It might be that I would like more magic type battles.
One of the things that can really skew an opinion of this game is playing a sovereign that doesn't align with your style of play.
I have played several games of elemental going back to the beginning, but I don't get to experiment with all the variety that this game has to offer. I also have to say that I am not a game expert so I don't know the calculus that goes into making a great game. I just like playing them. I hope someday I will program one.
Overall the game is great.
Ultimate game.
a real time strategy version of Civilization, with Stardock programed AI, Paradox's silmulator to run the economy, with Ironclad's game engine and graphics, and Total War's tactical battles. Then make it an enduring MMO world and make it all actually work on a normally powered computer with average bandwidth...
but thats probably too much to ask
Somehow you doesn't sound serious, to me it sounds terrible.My thoughts: I already dislike the real time part of Sins of a Solar Empire.
Sincerely~ Kongdej
All I have to say is that I'm glad your not the game designer on this game.
First: I Disagree with you about AOW (AOW:SM so far is one of the 4x Fantasy games so far IMO. Better than MOM, 'an improvement actully.')
Second: I would hate for there to be only a couple of spells to choose from (BORING.)
Third: You really want to limit the number of monsters ........ Really. Talk about boring. If any thing they shouls add more creatures.
Fourth: I love the Custom Unit creator to take it out would be a big mistake. Now it does need a little more work however.
Now I do agree with you suggestions on Tactical Battles. For me TC is the most important and funnest part of ANY 4x game and should be done well.
FE TC needs a LOT of work before it is up to par. The desicion to take away seiges and Walled cities/outpost in the TC is not a good one at all. AOW:SM TC was very fun and had all this.
I have seen people refered to the MOO ship design being great but no one has even mentioned the GalCiv2 Ship design with was absolutly fantastic. The best that I have ever played at least. Now Endless Space has a decent ship design similar to MOO and it is a damn good space game except like Galciv2 which was also a good game they drop the ball on the tactical combat. I want to control all my units in battle but that is just me any way I digress.
It is true that GO can be deep and has been around for around 3745 years however even though it can be a very challenging game it is still not as fun to play as chess which is a younger game and has more complexity. Why? because you have more you can do in chess. You have pieces that have different movements which gives the game more variety.
Now a game like CIV, Endless Space, AOW (all games) FE and many other 4x games have more variety and are more fun to play because you have more options to choose from.
I don't want FE to be the 'GO' of 4x games (BORING.) I want hundreds of monsters, Hundreds of spells and hundreds of units because it makes the game a lot more fun.
One of my favorite 4X fantasy games of all times is AOW:SM . Now the vanilla game was fun but seemed very limiting and the AI had issues. But after all the patches including the community patch the game really came into it's own. On top of that my friend and I moded hundreds of more units into the game to include sea units which made the oceans dangerous (finally.)
Because of those changes which made the game more complex and game more variety the game became more fun to play and is still fun to play after all these years so I don't buy your argument that more complexity ruins the game.
I like most of the suggestions except the Real time stratagy version of CIV part. Unless you were referring to the Total War tactical battles style.
For all we know Keith Burgun died in a fire several months ago. Can we please let this thread rest in peace or at least stop quoting him like he was the messiah? His suggestions are largely irrelevant now, whereas there are other threads that are still relevant in the areas he has commented on in beta 3.
Nope! I'm going to quote this thread in three months after FE has been released. And I will state with an utter certainty that THIS is the way they should design the game.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account